SECURITY SECTOR REFORM
Letter from the Chairman to Gareth Thomas
MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for International
Development
Thank you for your Explanatory Memorandum dated
21 June which Sub-Committee C considered at its meeting on 6 July.
The Sub-Committee agreed to clear the document from scrutiny.
We agree that the principles outlined in this
Communication are essential for strengthening the EC contribution
to overall support for security sector reform (SSR), and also
agree with your statement that "the key challenge is to ensure
that the Communication is translated into practice" (paragraph
12, EM).
Whilst stressing the importance of a greater
focus within the EU on SSR, your Explanatory Memorandum does not
fully address some of the Commission's proposals which relate
to defining "the Community's role in the wider framework
of EU external action in the area of SSR." In particular
we would like to receive your views on the following Commission
proposals:
— the use of a coordinated planning
approach across the three-pillar structure to ensure better coherence
of all EU actions;
— the strengthening of coordination
and complementarity between EU actions by the EC, the EU in the
framework of CFSP/ESDP and Member State's bilateral programmes
at headquarters and field level;
— the prioritisation of support for
SSR under the new Financial Instruments; and
— the strengthening of cooperation
with regional and multilateral organisations, including the UN,
OECD, Council of Europe, OSCE and AU, and with civil society organisations
and other NGO donors.
We note that this Communication was published
by the Commission on 24 May 2006 and considered by the General
Affairs and External Relations Council on 12 June. We therefore
request a full explanation for the delay in sending the Explanatory
Memorandum which we did not receive until 21 June, and ask for
reassurance that further documents relating to both SSR and disarmament,
demobilisation and reintegration (DDR) will be deposited in sufficient
time for proper scrutiny to take place.
6 July 2006
Letter from Gareth Thomas MP to the Chairman
Your Committee met on 6 July 2006 and discussed
the Explanatory Memorandum on the European Community Concept for
Security Sector Reform (SSR). The Committee cleared the document
but asked for our views on a number of the specific proposals
made by the Commission. I am pleased to set these out below and,
as requested, explain why the document was not submitted within
the appropriate timeframe.
To begin with, we fully support the use of a
coordinated planning approach across the three-pillar structure.
This is consistent with the "whole of government" approach
promoted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD) Development Assistance Committee (DAC) Good Practice Guide
on SSR, in recognition of the need to draw on development, diplomatic
and defence expertise and instruments in supporting SSR.
In the UK, this is achieved through the joint
DFID/FCO/MOD Global Conflict Prevention Pool (GCPP) SSR Strategy,
and through country SSR programmes funded by the GCPP and the
Africa Conflict Prevention Pool. In the EU, a coordinated approach
will need to be based on an assessment of the comparative advantage
of the respective pillars. Such an approach will help ensure a
smooth transition in post-conflict environments when leadership
on SSR moves from one pillar to another as the situation on the
ground changes.
Ensuring a coordinated approach across all EU
action on SSR will also make easier the task of promoting greater
complementarity between EU actions and Member State's bilateral
programmes. A key focus of current international work on SSR is
on bridging the gap between what is now a common conceptual understanding
of SSR and actual practice on the ground. As was mentioned in
the Explanatory Memorandum, an "Implementation Framework
for SSR" (IF) is being developed through the DAC. This is
intended to be a guide for country governments and all their local
and international partners to conducting SSR assessments and designing,
implementing, monitoring and evaluating SSR programmes. The IF
should therefore be a key means of ensuring that international
support to SSR is coherent and co-ordinated, but it will only
achieve this if donors, including all pillars of the EU, use it.
The Commission is a member of the team (led by the UK) which is
taking forward work on the IF, and we will work hard to ensure
that they commit to utilising it as they take forward work on
SSR. There are already positive signs in this regard: we understand
that the EC will use the draft IF to plan post-election support
to SSR in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Applying the framework in this way should also
serve to strengthen EU co-operation on SSR with civil society,
and with the regional and multilateral organisations highlighted
in your letter. Within the UN in particular, there are a number
of different institutions working on or with an interest in SSR.
As we have done with the EU, the UK is currently supporting the
development of a UN-wide SSR concept and adoption of the IF.
Effective action on SSR clearly requires appropriate
and timely financing. We support the proposal to ensure timely
and appropriate support for SSR under the new Financial Instruments,
in particular from the new Stability Instrument. As the Communication
makes clear, this support should be driven by an effective assessment
of needs and priorities in any particular country; and based on
the vision of SSR set out by the Commission and the priorities
of the partner government. SSR will not be a priority in every
country.
Separately, I am sorry you were not provided
with sufficient time for scrutiny on this occasion. The delay
in submitting the document was due to a combination of reasons
which are set out in my letter of 12 July to Jimmy Hood, which
is also copied to youc. I can confirm that we will continue to
work hard to submit all documents for scrutiny within the appropriate
time frame.
18 July 2006
| 
